Respondents must consider the SRO 149 pay-scale claim and issue a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The applicant, a retired Public Works Department employee possessing an ITI Certificate in the Building Trade, claimed eligibility for placement in the higher pay scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000 under SRO 149 of 1973, instead of the scale of Rs. 4,000–6,000.

His alleged entitlement had been scrutinised and recorded in his Service Book pursuant to departmental communications issued in 2008.

However, implementation of the benefit was kept in abeyance because of administrative instructions and litigation concerning SRO 149 of 1973.

The applicant relied on the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dated 8 May 2017 in Provincial Power Employees Union v. State of J&K, which was stated to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7992 of 2022, dismissed on 4 February 2026.

The applicant alleged that, despite the cessation of the legal impediment, the respondents had neither granted the higher pay scale nor released consequential arrears or revised his pension and retiral benefits.

During hearing, however, he restricted his prayer and requested that the Original Application be treated as a representation and decided by the competent authorities in accordance with law.

The respondents did not oppose disposal of the matter with appropriate directions, without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Whether the applicant’s claim for placement in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000 under SRO 149 of 1973, with consequential service, monetary and pensionary benefits, required consideration by the respondents in light of the decisions in Provincial Power Employees Union and the subsequent Supreme Court proceedings.

Whether the Original Application should be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a reasoned order within a stipulated period, without the Tribunal adjudicating the merits of the claim.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government employee to approach the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

SRO 149 of 1973 constituted the governing basis for the applicant’s claimed placement in the higher pay scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000, subject to eligibility and entitlement.

The Tribunal also directed consideration of the claim in light of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court judgment dated 8 May 2017 in Provincial Power Employees Union v. State of J&K & Ors., as affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 7992 of 2022 by the Supreme Court.

The applicable administrative-law principle was that a competent authority must consider a representation and pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the governing rules, without the Tribunal expressing an opinion on disputed questions of fact or law.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s entitlement under SRO 149 of 1973 had allegedly been recognised and entered in his Service Book, but that payment had remained withheld because of the pending litigation and the resulting legal impediment.

Since the applicant limited his request to consideration of his claim as a representation, and the respondents consented to such disposal without prejudice, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to retain the Original Application or determine the merits directly.

It therefore required the respondents to examine whether the applicant was similarly situated and covered by the cited High Court and Supreme Court decisions, and whether he satisfied the applicable eligibility requirements.

The Tribunal expressly left all factual and legal questions open and required the competent authority to issue a reasoned decision in accordance with law.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application, along with its annexures, as a representation and consider the applicant’s claim for the Rs. 5,000–8,000 pay scale under SRO 149 of 1973, appropriate grade pay, consequential benefits, and revision or re-fixation of pension and retiral benefits.

The claim was to be examined in light of the Provincial Power Employees Union judgments and applicable rules, subject to the applicant’s eligibility and the absence of any legal impediment.

A detailed, reasoned and speaking order was required to be passed within eight weeks from service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.